Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation:

Transcription

1 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation: The New World Order in Patent Enforcement November 19, 2013 Robert W. Ashbrook Martin J. Black Kevin Flannery 2013 Dechert LLP

2 Martin J. Black European Patent Enforcement and the E.U. Patent Court 2 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

3 The European Patent With Unitary Effect (UP) 3 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

4 The Unitary Patent In A Nutshell Creation of a European patent with a unitary effect (UP) in European Union (25 EU Member States except Italy, Spain and Croatia) (EC Regulation No 1257/2012 of 17 December 2012) Current existing European Patent (EP) and national patent systems remain Creation of a Unified Patent Court (UPC) with seat in Paris having exclusive jurisdiction over validity and infringement of UPs and EPs under specific conditions (Agreement on UPC of 19 February 2013) Entry into force in early Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

5 What is a UP? A UP is an EP granted by the European Patent Office under the European Patent Convention which: Within one month after its grant Upon the request of the EP owner Is given a unitary effect In 25 EU Member States (except Italy, Spain and Croatia) A UP is an option available to the EP owner and obtained after the grant of the EP 5 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

6 Conditions UP status may be requested for an EP granted on: Patent applications pending before the EPO on the date the system comes into force EP patents previously registered with the EPO for unitary effect provided that the EP was granted: With the same set of claims In all 25 Member State Advice: New EP applications to be filed or pending should designate the 25 Member States to have the option for transformation into UP in Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

7 Costs? Annual Fees? Single annual fee (50% for the EPO and 50% to be shared by the 25 Member States) Amount not determined yet: discussions still ongoing Low enough to be attractive High enough to ensure financing of the EPO and national offices 7 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

8 The Unified Patent Court (UPC) 8 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

9 The Structure of the UPC Seat: Paris 3 Central Divisions Paris (Section B: Performing Operations, Transporting; Section D: Textiles and Paper; Section E: Fixed Constructions; Section G: Physics; Section H: Electricity) London (Section A: Human Necessities; Section C: Chemistry, Metallurgy) Munich (Section F: Mechanical Engineering, Lighting, Heating, Weapons, Blasting) Local Division in each Member State (additional Local Division possible upon request for every 100 patent cases a year. No more than 4 per Member State) Regional Division for 2 or more Member States which do not set up a Local Division Court of Appeal: Luxembourg (facts and law) 9 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

10 Jurisdiction Over UPs and EPs (transitional period for 7 years: EP owners can opt out, so national courts remain competent, but opt-out may be revoked at any time) Infringement Local Division where infringement took place (choice when several locations) Local Division of domicile of defendant (choice when several defendants) For non EU defendants: Central Division Choice of the parties 10 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

11 Jurisdiction Revocation As main action: Central Division As a counterclaim: Local Division hears both infringement and revocation Local Division refers the case to the Central Division - Proceeds with both infringement and revocation - Stays the infringement case until outcome on revocation 11 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

12 Language of the Proceedings Before the Local divisions: national language or any EPO language (French, English or German) Before the Central Division: language of the patent Before the Court of Appeal: Language of 1st instance Language of the patent, upon parties agreement Language chosen by the Court and approved by the parties 12 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

13 Territorial Effect of the UPC Decisions For Ups In all the UP Member States For EPs In each country where the EP is in force 13 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

14 Robert W. Ashbrook Inter Partes Review: Lessons from Garmin v. Cuozzo 14 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

15 What Is Inter Partes Review Post-issue administrative procedure to challenge validity, inspired by European opposition practice Adversary procedure as part of the AIA Issues are limited Only anticipation and obviousness challenges based on patents and printed publications Only issues that were both raised in the challenger s initial application and initially granted by the PTAB 15 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

16 What Is Inter Partes Review Claim construction preliminarily decided as part of any decision instituting the IPR Very limited discovery by agreement or motion Trial by a Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel Trial is conducted primarily on the papers Oral hearing permits attorney argument and questions First judgment in an IPR on November 13, 2013 Garmin Int l v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., IPR Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

17 Inter Partes Review Timeline 17 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

18 Strategic Advantages for Defendants IPR resolves validity before infringement About 2/3 of infringement litigation is stayed pending IPR But continuation applications continue in prosecution Relatively quick Concludes within one year after institution Initial patent owner response due in 21 days Substantively easier to invalidate a patent Preponderance standard, not clear and convincing Broadest reasonable claim scope 18 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

19 Strategic Advantages for Defendants Less costly than litigation But requester incurs most costs up front USPTO fee is $23,000 if instituted No jury confusion PTAB judges have technical backgrounds If instituted, the result is appealable 19 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

20 Strategic Advantages for Plaintiffs Ability to amend during IPR One time as of right Amendment scope is restricted; burden on patent owner Estoppel for cancellation Requester Estoppel Any issue that reasonably could have been raised Applies to district court, ITC, or other PTO procedures Real parties in interest and privities are also estopped Effect on third parties 20 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

21 Additional Considerations Institution Eligibility to request IPR Timing: at least 9 months since issue Timing: within 1 year after patentee s infringement suit Requester: cannot have sued for a declaratory judgment of invalidity (unless a counterclaim) Standard for granting is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing Loser may request rehearing but may not appeal Effect of previously cited art Requester must include all possible issues up front Possible to file multiple petitions, then seek joinder 21 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

22 Additional Considerations Process Should the patentee oppose institution? No evidence permitted; tips the patentee s hand Default or negotiated protective order Unless information used in the PTAB decision Choice of expert for litigation versus for IPR Consider future non-infringement position Motions to exclude evidence All motions require PTAB authorization to file, usually via conference call with all parties Observations upon cross examination 22 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

23 Additional Considerations Discovery Mandatory initial disclosures Documents: art and exhibits cited Depositions: cross of affiants (e.g., experts) Inconsistent evidence Objective evidence of non-obviousness Third party discovery by motion only 23 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

24 Additional Considerations Resolution Estoppel Petitioner, real parties in interest, privities Patent owner In the USPTO, district court, ITC Intervening rights Settlement is possible No estoppel Amendment can be a term of settlement PTAB must accept the terms and approve confidentiality Interthinx v. Corelogic: PTAB accepts settlement for petitioner but continues inter partes review anyway 24 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

25 Additional Considerations Related Proceedings Parallel IPRs by different requesters Parallel litigation and ITC 337 investigations Effect of claim construction Effect of judgments; Fresenius and Versata Post-grant review Covered business method patent review Continuations still in prosecution Foreign oppositions and counterpart applications 25 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

26 IPR Experience since Sept. 16, 2012 Extremely popular Over 500 petitions so far Busier forum than any court, including the E.D. Texas. PTAB usually grants IPR petitions ~ 88% of petitions result in institution of an IPR But half of grounds are denied as weak or cumulative Results First covered business method decision August 16, 2013 Held invalid (non-patentable subject matter) 26 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

27 First IPR Judgment: Garmin v. Cuozzo, No. IPR Dashboard speed limit alert device with GPS Jun. 15, 2012: Cuozzo sues Garmin and others for infringement Sep. 16, 2012: Garmin petitions for IPR 20 claims alleged to be unpatentable on 8 different grounds Jan. 9, 2013: PTAB institutes IPR Trial limited to 3 claims and 2 grounds of obviousness Partial stay in court; Markman postponed until after IPR Mar. 11, 2013: Cuozzo moves to amend the 3 claims Aug. 16, 2013: Oral hearing Nov. 13, 2013: IPR final judgment 27 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

28 First IPR Judgment: Garmin v. Cuozzo, No. IPR PTAB affirms its initial claim construction from Jan. 9, 2013 Patent owner s attempt to swear behind the prior art is not proved 3 issued claims are held obvious The initial finding of a reasonable likelihood of prevailing was correct Patent owner s motion to amend is denied Amendment would enlarge the original claims scope Motion to exclude evidence is denied as moot 28 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

29 First IPR Judgment: Garmin v. Cuozzo, No. IPR Patent owner can request a rehearing Patent owner can appeal to the Federal Circuit Patent owner estoppel in the PTO, 37 CFR 42.73(d) Continuation applications, reissues, subsequent IPRs, etc. 3 claims are dead District court will presumably grant summary judgments 17 claims remain, including 10 asserted in court Prosecution history estoppel against Cuozzo? Collateral estoppel against Cuozzo? 29 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

30 First IPR Judgment: Garmin v. Cuozzo, No. IPR Petitioner estoppel is moot unless reversal Real party in interest or privy; touchstone is control Would not apply to others sued by Cuozzo Would apply in the PTO, Court, ITC Amendment would trigger intervening rights Petitioner not estopped from asserting invalidity of the remaining 17 claims Garmin can assert the 6 grounds not instituted No collateral estoppel apply, but persuasive effect? 30 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

31 Kevin Flannery Patent Reform 31 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

32 Do We Need Another Round Of Patent Reform? America Invents Act was passed in 2011 as the most significant change in patent laws since 1952 First to invent & Post-grant Inter Partes Review AIA passed after more than a decade of stopstarts to harmonize US and European laws Attempts to specifically legislate patent litigation (e.g., damages) failed Recent groundswell of legislative activity to curb abusive patent litigation tactics 32 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

33 Rep. Goodlatte s Innovation Act Heightened Pleading Requirements Fee Shifting To Prevailing Party Limited Discovery Until Claim Construction Bill Has Bipartisan Support With Early Traction, But Opposition Has Been Rising CAFC Chief Judge Rader the judiciary has the tools to restore confidence in the patent system 33 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

34 Heightened Pleading Requirements Patentee must include in initial pleading (e.g., Complaint) Asserted claims Identification of each accused product Map claims to accused products with detailed specificity Details to support indirect infringement allegations Description of principal business Standard essential patent? 34 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

35 Fee Shifting To The Prevailing Party Court shall award, to a prevailing party, reasonable fees Unless position was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust Patentee that tries to bail out by offering covenant not to sue shall be deemed a nonprevailing party Compared with standard for awarding fees against the U.S. under the Equal Access to Justice Act Applies only to complaints filed after enactment 35 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

36 Limits On Discovery Until The Completion Of Claim Construction Discovery shall be limited to information necessary to determine the meaning of the claims If the Court determines that claim construction is necessary Safety valve if resolution within a specified period of time will necessarily affect the rights of the patentee (Hatch-Waxman Act identified) 36 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

37 Will Further Patent Reform Legislation Have Unintended Consequences? Do heightened pleading requirements simply accelerate current routine practice? District of Delaware: identification of asserted claims 30 days after scheduling conference and claim charts 60 days later Trial court s more likely to grant a motion to dismiss? 37 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

38 Will Further Patent Reform Legislation Have Unintended Consequences? Should you have to pay your competitor s legal fees? Will competitor and university cases be presumptively substantially justified? Is the patent context comparable to the determination of whether fees should be awarded against the government under the EAJA? If initial discovery is limited to Markman, will cases take even longer to get to trial? Aren t we trying to relieve docket congestion? 38 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation

39 Dechert LLP Definitive advice Practical guidance Powerful advocacy dechert.com Almaty Austin Beijing Boston Brussels Charlotte Chicago Dubai Dublin Frankfurt Hartford Hong Kong London Los Angeles Luxembourg Moscow Munich New York Orange County Paris Philadelphia Princeton San Francisco Silicon Valley Tbilisi Washington, D.C. Dechert practices as a limited liability partnership or limited liability company other than in Almaty, Dublin, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Tbilisi. 39 Nov. 19, 2013 Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation